ORF to DNG

I converted my ORF files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter. When
viewing a directory with both the ORF and DNG files with FSView slide
show I noticed that the DNG files look slightly brighter and a bit
more saturated. Is this a prpoerty of the conversion or just how
FSView displays the different formats?

Advertisements

"MikeM" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I converted my ORF files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter. When
> viewing a directory with both the ORF and DNG files with FSView slide
> show I noticed that the DNG files look slightly brighter and a bit
> more saturated. Is this a prpoerty of the conversion or just how
> FSView displays the different formats?

I do not know of FSView but is it possible Adobe used "Auto" settings as it
does by default in ACR/Bridge?

Advertisements

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:45:32 -0700, "just bob"
<kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:
>
>"MikeM" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>>I converted my ORF files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter. When
>> viewing a directory with both the ORF and DNG files with FSView slide
>> show I noticed that the DNG files look slightly brighter and a bit
>> more saturated. Is this a prpoerty of the conversion or just how
>> FSView displays the different formats?
>
>
>I do not know of FSView but is it possible Adobe used "Auto" settings as it
>does by default in ACR/Bridge?
>

Yes, the converter uses auto settings to generate the
preview.

MikeM: it doesn't affect the raw data, only the preview. The
ORF will have a preview that matches the camera settings at
the time of exposure, the DNG will have a preview that
reflects how ACR would convert the file using its "auto"
default settings. It's unlikely that the two will ever look
exactly the same.

{..}
>
> Yes, the converter uses auto settings to generate the
> preview.
>
> MikeM: it doesn't affect the raw data, only the preview. The
> ORF will have a preview that matches the camera settings at
> the time of exposure, the DNG will have a preview that
> reflects how ACR would convert the file using its "auto"
> default settings. It's unlikely that the two will ever look
> exactly the same.

Yes, I've found this too. I got my E500 yesterday, and the few test
shots I took were able to at least give me a chance to test various
software to deal with the ORF files.

I did the tests using only the software's default settings, and carried
out no adjustments at all. All were then saved to a TIFF file.

iPhoto and PhotoShop Elements seemed to treat the files about the same,
with a little extra saturation, and bit of colour casting - I took some
flowers that were pink, and both of these softwares put a purple cast on
them. The only difference was the TIFF in iPhoto ended up at 65MB!, The
Elements version was a more normal 20MB.

I also tried the supplied Camedia Master software too. This was a little
slower in processing the images, as it did a fresh 'developing image'
run every time I adjusted anything (which I didn't use in this test).
However, the images it produced were much more neutral in colour, and
had a lot more detail left, but were slightly darker too. It does have a
habit of cropping a tiny amount off the top of every image though.

Initially I think my process would be to use Camedia Master to
post-process the RAW file, and then use Elements to do any further
editing on a TIFF file.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:03:58 +0100, (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>iPhoto and PhotoShop Elements seemed to treat the files about the same,
>with a little extra saturation, and bit of colour casting - I took some
>flowers that were pink, and both of these softwares put a purple cast on
>them. The only difference was the TIFF in iPhoto ended up at 65MB!, The
>Elements version was a more normal 20MB.

You probably made a 16-bit TIFF with iPhoto and an 8-bit
TIFF with Elements.
>I also tried the supplied Camedia Master software too. This was a little
>slower in processing the images, as it did a fresh 'developing image'
>run every time I adjusted anything (which I didn't use in this test).
>However, the images it produced were much more neutral in colour, and
>had a lot more detail left, but were slightly darker too. It does have a
>habit of cropping a tiny amount off the top of every image though.

Adobe raw converters don't do a good job on Olympus colour I
have to agree. Silkypix is the only converter I've used
(other than the Olymus software) that gets it right.

John Bean <> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:03:58 +0100,
> (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> >iPhoto and PhotoShop Elements seemed to treat the files about the same,
> >with a little extra saturation, and bit of colour casting - I took some
> >flowers that were pink, and both of these softwares put a purple cast on
> >them. The only difference was the TIFF in iPhoto ended up at 65MB!, The
> >Elements version was a more normal 20MB.
>
> You probably made a 16-bit TIFF with iPhoto and an 8-bit
> TIFF with Elements.

Yup, I have just worked that out, doh!
> >I also tried the supplied Camedia Master software too. This was a little
> >slower in processing the images, as it did a fresh 'developing image'
> >run every time I adjusted anything (which I didn't use in this test).
> >However, the images it produced were much more neutral in colour, and
> >had a lot more detail left, but were slightly darker too. It does have a
> >habit of cropping a tiny amount off the top of every image though.
>
> Adobe raw converters don't do a good job on Olympus colour I
> have to agree. Silkypix is the only converter I've used
> (other than the Olymus software) that gets it right.

Hmmm, looks like I'll stick with Camedia for now than, although that's
not actually a bad bit of software as it is.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!